Vermont Legalizes ‘Gay Marriage’, But Federal Benefits Don’t Apply

WorldNetDaily reports that Vermont has legalized “gay marriage”. The difference here is that the legislation doesn’t address federal benefits. Basically, gays can get married in name, only, but won’t receive any of the federal benefits that heterosexual couples do. Their “marriage” also means nothing in states that don’t recognize “gay marriage”.

Vermont legalizes same-sex marriage

State legislators override GOP governor’s veto by exact vote needed

The Republican governor of Vermont vetoed a bill legalizing same-sex marriage passed by the state’s Legislature yesterday, only to have the lawmakers at the Capitol override the veto today.

The bill had passed easily through the Vermont Senate, 26-4, last month, but the House had approved it 95-52, just five votes short of the two-thirds majority needed in the 150-member body to override a gubernatorial veto.

The Associated Press reports the vote today to override the veto was 23-5 in the state Senate and 100-49 in the House.

Vermont becomes the third state in the country to legalize same-sex marriage, following Massachusetts and Connecticut. Last week, an Iowa Supreme Court ruling overturned the Midwestern state’s ban on same-sex marriage, a ruling that – if fully implemented by state administrators – would raise the total to four states.

Vermont was the first state in the country to adopt civil unions for homosexual couples nine years ago.

In comments delivered with yesterday’s veto, Governor Jim Douglas stated that adding the term “marriage” to Vermont’s statutes would serve no practical purpose.

“This legislation does not address the inequalities espoused by proponents,” said the governor. “Regardless of whether the term marriage is applied, federal benefits will still be denied to same sex couples in Vermont. And states that do not recognize same-sex marriage or civil unions will also deny state rights and responsibilities to same-sex couples married in Vermont.”

“I would support congressional action to extend those benefits at the federal level to states that recognize same-sex unions,” Douglas continued. “But I believe that marriage should remain between a man and a woman.”

Douglas had promised to veto the bill even before it was passed, but also said that he wouldn’t urge fellow Republicans to side with him on upholding the veto.

“I think this is such an emotional, divisive, personal issue,” Douglas told WCAX-TV in Burlington, Vt., “it’s something that individuals have to decide how to vote on based on their personal convictions and faith, and I think each legislator ought to decide personally what to do.”